Qiang Ye v. Eric Holder, Jr. ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION NOV 19 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
QIANG ZHI YE, No. 10-73898
Petitioner, Agency No. A042-010-298
v.
MEMORANDUM*
ERIC H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General,
Respondent.
On Petition for Review of an Order of the
Board of Immigration Appeals
Submitted November 17, 2014**
San Francisco, California
Before: HAWKINS and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges, and LYNN, District
Judge.***
Qiang Zhi Ye (Ye), a Chinese national and citizen, petitions for review of
the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) dismissing his appeal of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Barbara M.G. Lynn, District Judge for the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, sitting by designation.
the immigration judge’s denial of deferral of removal pursuant to the Convention
Against Torture (CAT). Ye contends that the BIA’s decision was not supported by
substantial evidence because it is more likely than not that he would be forcibly
sterilized due to his intellectual disability.
Substantial evidence supports the BIA’s dismissal of Ye’s overly speculative
CAT claim premised on the 2008 U.S. Department of State Human Rights Report
for China. Although the State Department report reflects that the Chinese
government requires individuals with congenital disabilities to use birth control or
undergo sterilization if they wish to marry, Ye failed to demonstrate that it was
more likely than not that he would be forcibly sterilized due to his non-congenital
disability resulting from childhood meningitis. See Zheng v. Holder, 644 F.3d 829,
836 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that the BIA properly denied CAT relief based on the
petitioner’s overly speculative claim); see also Alphonsus v. Holder, 705 F.3d
1031, 1049 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Despite the troubling country reports, the record
evidence does not compel the conclusion that [petitioner] himself will be, more
likely than not, tortured upon his return. . . .”) (emphasis in the original).
PETITION DENIED.
2